Which side makes a better case?
avatar
17 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    People don't remember this, but back in the days Burger King had the same recipe for fries that McDonald's had. This was about 25 years ago or so. Then they decided to go with a more "healthier" option and oil. The point is that the recipe changed.

    Since then Burger King fries have sucked. Which can be seen as a chain reaction causing Burger King to drop from the #2 to the #4 world wide for fast food. Because the whopper hasn't changed at all.

    I could talk about fast food all day long.

  • 2 years ago

    @yaz That was a blast. Thank you for the debate!

    • 2 years ago

      That was awesome, i want to go again! lol
      Thank you @mar, you made a better more concrete case :) i came in too hypothetical

      • 2 years ago

        @yaz I almost wish we had done the full 30, haha.
        I liked your points. It was an interesting way to frame the motion. I had just come in with more of a policy read than a philosophy read.

      • 2 years ago

        i came in with no read, completely gut-feeling driven strategy and left with a huge craving for some Mc Nuggets... :)

        we should do this again soon, another topic!

    • 2 years ago

      in general...good debate that was close to a 'non-debate.' Seems that the issue was either change existing stuff to make it healthier (per yaz), or add more new stuff that is healthy, but don't risk losing customers by changing existing menu items (by mar)...which actually makes good sense.

      Nothing controversial (like injecting government mandates) - it was like both weren't suggesting anything that would disrupt 'free market choices.'

      Good job by both.

      • 2 years ago

        I love listening to all of @mar 's debates. Such a great mix of evidence, reason, and storytelling.

        I think that McDonald's brand goes beyond their food offerings. So long as they maintain their core offerings of burgers and fires, they don't dilute that. But their advertising has always been multi-dimensional. Its part food, part culture, part convenience.

        As a franchise brand, they are interested in growth of franchises and while their brand is global, their individual restaurants are often regional in focus. They very often offer menu items that are popular in a given country or region along with their standard iconic foods. This allows them to have much wider market penetration and wider buyership (Pro points out that this buyership focus works).

        Yaz's ideas for other areas to sell healthy without changes are good. But they are also as we say, non-unique in the sense they could follow both. He does offer a comparative cost analysis but not that they could not do both.

        Pro's evidence here is a huge persuader. It is concrete proof that these changes can and do make gains and that McDonalds is not a margin busines so much as a growth and net revenue business.

      • 2 years ago

        I'll just add that Burgers are not really junk food exactly. They are nutritious in many dimensions. So @Yaz s point that its not really worse than a traditional sandwich is very true.

        But... its the soda at these places that is total and utter junk food. It's pretty much all bad for you and offers minimal nutrition.

        Fries are somewhere in the middle, a bit light on nutrition and high in fat/salt compared to the sandwiches, but at least have some nutrition compared to the nutritional evils of soda.